Mexico wants tighter gun control in the US and the names of gun owners

Given Fast and Furious, I’d suggest that Mexico ask for the names of gun runners instead. We’d top that list with the names “Barack Obama” and “Eric Holder”. However:

On February 18th, Sentinel reported about a new law passed by Mexican legislators – a mandate for a formal request of our US Senate to create and share a gun registry of all commercial firearms in the border states with the Mexican government and police. Private gun ownership names and addresses would then be in the hands of the Mexican government and police that all agree are filled with corruption.

In the past, I’d unhesitatingly say, “yeah, not going to happen”. With this administration, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if they tried to comply.

Mexican ambassador to the U.S., Eduardo Medina Mora, said he hopes the Newtown shooting “opens a window of opportunity for President Obama” to pass tighter gun control laws.”

“The Second Amendment and the regulations adopted in the U.S. is not, never was and never should be designed to arm foreign criminal groups,” the nervy ambassador said.

Mexican activists in Mexico City have passed in a petition with 54,000 signatures asking for tighter US gun control.

Of course they have – the murder and mayhem among their criminal class is out of control and epidemic and they need someone to blame. And, of course, this would provide a wonderful premise on which to clamp down on private ownership of firearms, Constitution be damned.

Of course realty says that, stipulated, even if they could and did do this, nothing would change:

George W. Grayson, a Mexico expert at the College of William and Mary, doubts tighter gun control laws in the U.S. will greatly affect violence in Mexico. Cartels, Grayson said, can easily find AK-47s and other assault weapons on the international market – places such as China, France, Brazil and Israel.

“The lion’s share of weapons used by cartels come from the United States, but having said that, if the Virgin of Guadeloupe were to stop the flow of weapons southward it would be a nuisance for the cartels but it certainly would not end the bloodshed,” Grayson said.

Ultimately, he said, Mexico would do itself a favor by looking domestically for the roots of the drug war – fixes are badly needed to the country’s corrupt judicial system, military and police force.

But reality and facts have never before stopped a political agenda. Arms such as those the cartels use are readily available from dozens of international arms dealers. Screwing the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment wouldn’t change that one iota.

And they know that. But, as pointed out the other day, this isn’t about facts. This is about a social and political agenda. In the case of such agendas, pretty much anything is considered fair, to include ignoring facts, science and the Constitution.

I question if the crime block of Northern Mexico is based on drugs anymore. It seems their rise is tied to illegal immigration. All kinds of drugs were flowing in the 80’s and Mexico didn’t have the problem it has.

Wondered about that, too. I assume it means “non military”. Could be the result of an unfortunate translation from Spanish, which might have been better rendered “civilian”.
Dunno, and it’s sort of irrelevant. The whole stinking notion is an outrage.

The majority of guns used by Mexican cartels does not come from the US. They come from the Mexican government and Central America.

Most traces of Mexican crime guns trace the guns to the US, but that is because they only run a trace on guns that look like they can be traced to the US. There is no point running a trace on Soviet military hardware or other weapons that obviously didn’t come from US gun stores.